Super Bowl halftime performer detained after unfurling Sudanese-Palestinian flag
A performer in Kendrick Lamar’s Super Bowl halftime show was detained on the field and could face charges after unfurling a combination Sudanese-Palestinian flag with “Sudan” and “Gaza” written on it.
You're viewing part of a thread.
That's why I said stretch. He could have been asked to leave immediately, then charged with trespass for not leaving fast enough or something.
Technically, authorization to be on a property can be explicitly conditional, and intentional violation of those conditions can amount to trespass. If they had expressly forbidden the performers from political expression, protestation, etc. as part of their contract or notice was given as part of their being allowed on the field, then they could be charged with trespass for breaking the conditions upon which they were allowed on the field. But only if those conditions were made clear before hand and the performer intentionally violated those conditions.
That's not how most state trespassing laws are written. You typically can't wrap up trespassing in a contract like that.
Laws do differ state to state. Trespass may be more or less restrictive in different places. In Louisiana where this took place, the trespass law reads, in part...
C. (1) No person shall remain in or upon property, movable or immovable, owned by another without express, legal, or implied authorization.
This does not require that the person be given direct notice that they are no longer authorized or had their permission revoked before they are required to leave like some states may require. The only requirement is that they no longer have authorization (expressed, legal or implied). If conditionals for authorization were given and you knowingly break those conditions, you no longer have express or implied authorization. That is trespass.
Again, all this is hypothetical. I'm not saying that these conditions were expressly given by the NFL or anyone else involved with the Super Bowl or half time show. I'm just say that there is the realm of possibility where they could have been, and in that case, the moment he violated those conditions, it would be trespass.
Not a lawyer.
From the argument, it seems that the violation of the conditions in itself is not trespassing. Trespassing is staying after the conditions were violated. Since the person was promptly removed, it is very hard to argue that they trespassed.
You could argue that if he violated the conditions and then made to leave immediately after then that was not trespass. I could see it going the other way too, though, if he entered the property with intent to violate the conditions (the flag was no accidental, after all). But if he knowingly violated the conditions and remained and/or resisted attempts to make him leave, that would still be trespass.
No.
He was allowed on the property, and that presumes he was intended to be there. If at some point they were told they were trespassing, then they need to leave. There is no such thing as a "conditional trespass" in US law after you're already there.
This will fall apart in court if it's a trespass charge.
If i put a no solicitation sign on my property and solicitors walk past that to come knock on my door, that's trespass. If i put up a no fishing sign on my pond, and you come and fish, you're trespassing. Just because I may otherwise welcome the neighbors to come hang out and swim in my pond, doesn't mean you can do what you want when I've expressly forbidden it on my property. Your allowance on my property is conditional and intentionally violating those conditions means you are no longer welcome and you're aware of it. Passive notice is still notice. Same way with no trespassing signs or locked gates.
Yeah, that is actually trespassing if you're giving notice. If you invite someone onto your property, then call the cops because they are trespassing, YOU will be in the wrong.
In the example I gave that you disagreed with, they would have given them notice. They would have said something like, "no protests, no political stunts, etc." I'm not saying that they did say that. I'm saying that IF someone was given those as conditions for entry, hypothetically, and then violated them, then they would be trespassing. Telling someone you can perform on my property as long as you don't do X is the same as having a sign that says "you can swim in my pond but no fishing"
Oh also...
A conditional or restricted consent to enter land creates a privilege to do so only in so far as the condition or restriction is complied with.
Let me retort with an actually salvageable communication of those laws by a reputable institution: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trespass
Not the first paragraph.
That's obviously an under representation of what trespass is. Even your original statement shows that. It's not just entering property without permission. As you said you can have permission to enter, then have said permission revoked and be asked to leave and THEN be trespassing if you remain without permission. You can also be trespassing if you enter a property with intent to take actions that are clearly unwanted/ unsanctioned by the owner (such as vandalism, dumping waste, putting on a concert, etc.) Your source has clearly not covered all the bases.
